Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Senator Ludlam is familiar with them as well. Those are exactly the sorts of services that Senator McCarthy was talking about this evening.

I argue—and I will get to this shortly—the Senate committee report argued and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission argued that the best way to preserve diversity in the Australian media marketplace is to lift the rules, lift the regulations, not to continue to impose them. Let us be clear. When Labor Party members of the House of Representatives yesterday voted down the government's media reform bills they voted down licence fee relief for commercial television and radio broadcasters; they voted down fairer and more sensible tax arrangements for spectrum to ensure the public receives a fair return on this public asset; they opposed, they voted down, media ownership changes that will support Australian companies and Australian jobs against foreign tech competitors; they voted down, they voted against, new local television content protections for rural and regional communities; and they voted down, they rejected, antisiphoning reform for subscription television in this country.

It is easy to dismiss the tremendous amount of success that has been achieved over the last two years and, importantly, all too easy to dismiss the important consensus that was reached first inside the coalition and, second, amongst media proprietors themselves. It was, ambitiously, the government thought, a consensus that might have been able to have been reached within the House of Representatives, but, no. Let us hope that that consensus might be able to be achieved in the Australian Senate.

If you could indulge me for one moment, Mr Acting Deputy President Bernardi, I will read from an opinion piece that I wrote and had published in The Australian Financial Review on 4 January 2016, because it demonstrates how far the government has come, how far the community has come and how far media proprietors and media operators have come but, unfortunately, how little distance the Australian Labor Party has been able to travel on the important issue of media reform. That opinion piece is important because it reflects on the comment that I made little earlier about just how high were the hurdles that we had to overcome inside the coalition party room in order to get to this very, very significant achievement that we are hoping that Labor Party senators might embrace tonight. The opinion piece starts:

In the middle of 2015, it was widely predicted by many insiders that media reform was "off the table". Yet as the new year opens, the government is entering the final phase of deliberations that may bring an end to the redundant "reach rule" and possibly the death of another out-of-date media ownership rule, colloquially known as "two out of three".

With virtually all players conceding the reach rule - which restricts competition and choice in regional media markets - is past its use by date, the debate is now focused on how best to safeguard local content Resolution on this point is closer than many realise, with the views of the key parties broadly aligned.

Importantly, this includes regionally focused Liberal and Nationals MPs, who are setting their minds to a plan that will both preserve media coverage and choice in regional communities, while at the same time enable regional broadcasters to reverse their challenging financial experiences of recent years.

This is a very important piece of media reform. By any measure, if successful in the Senate, this will be a significant piece of legislative reform in its own right that will stand up against other significant pieces of legislation that the government has brought in, not just under Mr Turnbull's prime ministership but, indeed, under Mr Abbott's prime ministership as well. If there is any balance, if there is any sensible view, if there is any real understanding inside the minds of Labor Party senators, they will understand that the best way to arrest the financial decline, to arrest the increasing lack of viability in the Australian media industry, is to support these reforms.

What I would like to do is give a voice to some of those media operators, who know their industry the best, who know the industry much better than anyone here in this place, and encourage others senators to listen to the contributions that they have made in arguing for reform of their own industry. When other people argue for reform of their industry, whether it be public or private industry, we often hear Labor Party senators come into this place and give a voice to the virtues of those people who seek reform in other areas. But somehow, for some reason, when media operators themselves argue for reform they are treated with suspicion, they are treated with disdain. It is true that the Australian media market is tremendously competitive. The fact that operators themselves have been able to reach an agreement suggests that the issues are not just live for them but also very, very urgent and critical.

I would like to start with two of the more publicly challenged media operators in our country. Channel 10 and Senator Ludlam made some commentary in regard to some of the challenges that Channel 10 face, but Fairfax Media have done also. The Ten Network, in its submission to the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee inquiry on the media reform bills made this comment. It said:

Removing these outdated media laws—

and I think it is important to remember that at this point I am focusing on the reach rule and the two-out-of-three rule, which are at the heart, if you like, of the consensus that we thought had been reached with regard to media reform—

is an important step in dismantling a set of regulations that are making Australian media companies less competitive in a global, converged media market at a time when the foreign technology companies continue to grow and dominate advertising revenue growth at astonishing rates.

By arbitrarily restricting Australian media companies’ access to scale, capital and cross-platform growth, the current rules threaten the ongoing viability of Australian diversity and a local voice.

I cannot help but go back to Senator McCarthy's contribution. What Senator McCarthy's contribution focused on was the importance of having local voices in our media, the importance of having local voices telling local stories in their local communities, in their regional and remote local communities, and they want to stand in the way of that one thing that media operators say will give voices and improve local content for those regional and remote communities.

Let me turn briefly to what Fairfax Media had to say in its contribution to the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee inquiry on the government's media reform bills. This is important. I think it is fair to say that no-one has to deal more on a day-to-day basis with the challenges of a changing media landscape than Fairfax Media. Mr Greg Hywood's submission was in October 2016. That again demonstrates the length of time this debate has been happening but also the important progress it has made. On the issues, Mr Hywood said:

One of the most persistent has been the pervasive and increasing influence of the giant global search engines and social media platforms on the Australian media industry. From Fairfax Media's point of view, the extent to which these organisations, based offshore, are diverting advertising revenue away from and undermining Australian media companies that invest in local content and journalists and which pay taxes is one of the prime justifications for abolishing the current two-out-of-three restriction. This artificial and outdated restriction—

That is worth repeating:

This artificial and outdated restriction is a disincentive to investment in the Australian media and a severe brake on our ability to compete against global competition.

Let me put that a different way: the Labor Party's opposition to reform of the two-out-of-three rule is allowing an artificial and outdated restriction to continue to exist and is allowing a disincentive to investment in Australian media to continue exist and, by their actions, they are continuing to put a severe brake on the media industry's ability to compete against global competition. It is ironic because the things that Labor senators think they are protecting by opposing the two-out-of-three rule are in fact driving a further deterioration of the Australian media landscape in communities that are important to Senator McKenzie, who is in the Senate tonight, communities that are important to Senator Back and that he has represented this evening and, indeed, communities that are important to me.

I turn to the comments that Ian Audsley, Grant Blackley and Andrew Lancaster made in their contribution to the Senate committee inquiry. I draw this out particularly because I am not ashamed to say that, behind the scenes, the coalition worked assiduously to find consensus amongst Liberal and National Party regional MPs on this important issue and, to the great credit of many National Party MPs and many Liberal MPs representing regional communities, we found that consensus, and then the media industry itself found that consensus, and then we come to the Australian Senate and unfortunately Labor senators cannot find it in themselves to embrace sensible reform.

Let me just share with you what Ian Audsley, Grant Blackley and Andrew Lancaster said:

Surely, the evidence is clear. The case has been made. We doubt there is a politician in Canberra who wants to say they presided over an outdated regulatory regime that held back regional media.

They said:

We doubt there is a politician in Canberra who wants to say they presided over an outdated regulatory regime that held back regional media.

Perhaps it falls on me, Senator Back, perhaps it falls on me, Senator McKenzie, to name those politicians in Canberra in the Australian Senate at half past 11 on this Thursday night who want to 'preside over an outdated regulatory regime' that will hold back regional media interests. Let me name them: Senator Dastyari, Senator Pratt, Senator Bilyk, Senator Farrell—

Opposition senators interjecting—